Our narrator is someone along the lines of the coalition person. He’s black and brought themselves up from those poor living conditions. Thus he can empathize with both sides of the subject. From his voice he still incorporates ebonics into his speech, while is still very well spoken.

The narrator is looking back at his life about five years after. Seeing how he went from the tunnels to coalition to help the homeless and beyond. Now he is looking back at his life, seeing what he did, and how things still are.

Sample:

yea, i lived in this fuckin hellhole before. Horrible living conditions, but at that time, i aint got no other choice. I had to tough it out in here for some time.

Lots of problem with people living down there. Nobody wants them down there, not even them. But what other choice to they have? That was the only place we could afford to call home.

to show people the plight that they are going through. Also, it would serve as a sort of motivating factor, hearing somebody who was in their position before pull themselves out of the hole.

Jentery: sorry, turns out i didn’t publish it last class….so here it is….

Our narrator would be one of the residents. It would be someone who is less educated and sounds that way, swearing a lot and using a lot of colloquial language (poor grammar, “hey, man,” etc.). It should be a black male in his 30’s or 40’s with more of a “street voice” – heavier, raspier, like he’s lived a tough life. The resident would have found housing and would be looking back on the whole story after it happened, several months after finding housing. At first, he would be speaking like he is recalling what happened, and at the end, it would show him where he is now in his new residence.

He would start by introducing what happened in his own words (instead of just reading that description on the screen).  While scenes of the amtrak station flash on the screen.  Then he would almost be sitting back listening to his fellow residents and their opinions on what was happening to them at the time.  When the second scene starts our narrator intorduces the Amtrak relations officer stating: “This dude, ain’t know what happen, he thinks just cuz he’s got a degree he better than us.”  Our narrator then listens to what the man says.  When the man pauses our narrator interjects comments such as, “that’s bs.” “he wasn’t there.” “I’d like to see him live there for 15 years.” When the other residents are speaking, he could introduce them by saying what happened to them: “Now Mike here, he never did get himself a place to live, he’s livin’ in a **** shelter now.”

2 First person Narrators: One will be an advocate for the people living in the tunnel and the other will be a resident of the tunnel.

Advocate: More educated, optimistic, and talking about the goals of their cause

Resident: More personal response, more candid

Time: Occurring 2 or 3 years later

Yes, the narrators are part of the film

Gender does not matter

Age: mid-30s to 40s

Race/Ethnitcity: Majority African-Americans 

Lines:

Beginning of Clip 3:

Advocate speaks:

“At the time of negotiations with Amtrack, our goal was to utilize already existing federal programs to help liberate the people from their horrendous living conditions. Our first step to helping these residents was to find them suitable housing whether it be in the form of shelters or government subsidized housing. Although we recieved resistance from them, we ultimately achieved the goal of improving their lives.”  

To close the scene the resident will speak:

“Yea we went to the shelters- we had no choice. It was that or being killed. They refused our pleas to go away, they trashed our homes, they insulted us, and degraded our way of life. “

voice – formal, educated sounding, man’s voice

informative, no value judgements, giving a voice to people who are film but not commenting positively or negatively on the situation

present tense

first scene with homeless people talking: “John Smith has lived hear for half of his forty year life. The subway is the closest thing he has ever had to a home. Over the last two decades, John has made friendships and created bonds with the other residents of the subway. John now comments on his experience with the police.”

The narration is meant to serve the homeless people living in the subway. The audience is people who have more money and are not homeless.

For our PSA about getting homeless people homes, our narrator would be a young homeless male with a slightly grizzled voice, somewhere between 25 and 30 years of age. He wouldn’t be part of the scene. His basic message would be a first-hand account of the terrible living conditions of living underground next to the tunnel and appeal to the listener’s ethos. The narrator would be speaking in every scene with emphasis on talking during scenes where pictures of the ghetto underground living space are shown. Some example content of the narrator would be like “Look at us, we are living underground… this isn’t by choice, man, … we have nowhere else to go.” Because he is talking from a personal standpoint as a homeless man, his language would be lay-person but not vulgar. He would speak passionately from personal experience. Our audience would be citizens of the city who don’t live underground, citizens who are listening comfortably from their homes. Ideologically it should inspire the listener to get involved and try to save these homeless people.

    We feel that our narrator should be a woman, probably and educated activist lending her voice to help the residents of the tunnel. She’s probably young- and has a lot of energy and sympathy to devote to the cause. Her character isn’t prominent the film- she’s facilitating the conversation. She’s also probably on location, immersing herself in the conversation, directly involving herself and the audience in the situation. The narration is set in the same time frame as the conflict; it’s as if she’s trying to take immediate action and remedy the situation.

In the chapter about the tunnel she might say something like:

 “This is so-and-so, whose called the tunnel home for over 10 years. Should he be evicted from the tunnel, he’d probably live on the streets, instead of losing his pride and dignity by moving into a shelter.”

In the chapter which takes place in the Amtrak office, she might talk about the insincerity of the Amtrak administration.

“This is Mr. Highandmighty, who makes over a zillion dollars a year, and lives in a mansion. A corporate puppet, he has very little insight into the actual living conditions of the residents of the tunnel.”

Our narrator is definitely speaking for the “victims” of Amtrak’s eviction- the residents of the tunnel. Because she is the voice of a group of undereducated and underprivileged people, she’s essentially giving them an opportunity to defend themselves and their home. Our narrator is sticking it to the man- she’s biased against big corporations who are demonstrating corporate greed. She doesn’t feel that Amtrak is acting in the interest of the residents of the tunnel- they’re being in genuine when the speak on behalf of the tunnel resident’s health,  and are taking advantage of the defenseless homeless people.

The “voice” of the voice-over narrator would be that of an eloquent, thoughtful African-American male. He would not directly represent someone who’s living with the underground residents, but someone who sides with the residents and wants to make their issues public. There will be an interview between our strong “voice” and the cameraman or interviewer, and the dialogue will show that they are in a courtroom, and the narration will be a type of testimony. He will use legal terms, but also employ rhetorical devices to show his passion for defending the residents. His stance is not keeping them there, but to allow the residents to stay there until government-funded housing is created.

• Voice: This narrator should be a man with a powerful and charismatic voice.  His voice should sound confident and convincing to the audience.  These homeless people do not speak very proper english, therefore we believe this narrator should speak clearly and el0quently. We picture this narrator as an african-american man, who is in his 40’s.  I guess you could call him a “Dr. King figure.” This just seems like a person that would be influential…
• This narrator would be speaking during the time frame of this documentary.  He is speaking from a position of agreement and concern for these homeless citizens.  His voice will hopefully affect and sway the audience in his favor.  He will be speaking from a moving train, on the very day of the filming.
• Some sample content would be the following:

“The governemt and amtrack have no consideration of how these homeless citizens are feeling.  Although it may be a burden on Amtracks business, they need to help these people get on their feet rather than throw them on the street.  This is their home, it is all they have known for almost 20 years in some cases. ”

• This narrator could possibly affect the audiences views on service.  By seeing this, they may be motivated to go out and help those in need…homeless people in particular.

Our narrator: a male voice because it holds more authority, plus the subjects of the doc were mostly male. Very serious and monotonous tone. A narrator that is distanced from the events – a simple observer, an interviewer.

Space and Time: It would sound as if the narrator was there – an interviewer. Would be present all scenes with commentary.

Content :  He isn’t speaking for anyone, if only the curious audience. He would have a conversation with the audience and bring up questions. He would summarize what people were trying to say and adding important context. Right after the residents of the amtrak : “The residents have voiced their resentment against the eviction, but the Amtrak office feels that they have reason to take that action” go to office.

Audience: We have decided that narrator is not serving anyone but instead is the eyes and ears for the audience, thus giving audience info and letting them do with it what they like.  It is easier for the audience to distance themselves emotionally. It allows people to still connect with the doc but still gives them space to hold their own position.

Ryan and Colleen

We agree that the man at the end of the clips, who worked for the Coalition for the Homeless, would make an ideal narrator for “Dark Days”,  because  he sounds very well educated, and knows how to articulate his thoughts. He provides a  good contrast to the bias of the Amtrak official, and helps advocate the cause of the residents. His voice would be even, possibly with slight bitter undertones, arguing logically for the residents.

He could speak during transitions between scenes, and/or possibly in the part of the scene where the man is washing himself and cleaning his floor. He would be speaking a year or two after the facts, from his office at the coalition.

after the amtrak man’s speech/while the man is washing:

” Obviously, the residents of the tunnels know how to care for themselves, especially those who have lived there for several years. If their environments were as the amtrak official described, they would have fallen ill long ago”

After the conversation between the man and the woman in the tunnels:

“With homeless shelters becoming places of crime, the residents are being forced to seek options which are simply not there.”

The narrator would be serving the residents, in order to appeal to the community to raise awareness of their plight, which so many others suffer unnoticed.